U.S. Presidential Election 2024 Part II: 象対ロバ

[Gorbles]

No, the far left has in fact been systematically working to silence, exclude, extinguish and generally crush all dissenting voices in the western world. Say anything they dislike and they immediately start a campaign to "cancel" you and "deplatform" you. Their words. There is really no difference between the radicals of any movement no matter what they espouse to preach.

The fact you're trying to push this in a thread where the current discussion is about a right-wing shooter supporting right-wing gun laws shooting a right-wing politician is kinda hilarious.

 

[Samson]

No, the far left has in fact been systematically working to silence, exclude, extinguish and generally crush all dissenting voices in the western world. Say anything they dislike and they immediately start a campaign to "cancel" you and "deplatform" you. Their words. There is really no difference between the radicals of any movement no matter what they espouse to preach.

I am not sure who the far left are these days, but now I have this image of the Maoist guerrillas in Myanmar or the Columbian communists who were too far left of FARC to make peace tapping away on smart phones in the jungle doing their praxis by cancelling and deplatforming people.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Point is extremists are the same no matter what they claim to believe in. Because they believe in extremism first and everything else is just an excuse to be extreme.

 

[Gorbles]

No, your original point was some wild claims about the "far left". Your new point is a different point, that seems to be suggesting horseshoe theory. In a discussion about a right-winger shooting Trump.

Why the desperate need to try and "both sides" this?

 

[Senethro]

Point is extremists are the same no matter what they claim to believe in. Because they believe in extremism first and everything else is just an excuse to be extreme.

And what are the diagnostic criteria for extremism? How do you know?

 

[EvaDK]

Horrible news to wake up to. Doesn't really matter whether you would vote for Trump or Biden.

Don't know if this has been shared already, but this photo taken, shows the first projectile (or the air moving around it) just as it passed Trump's head.
It's not the projectile that hit his right ear. We were two inches away from a potential catastrophic event in US history.

Spoiler :

RIP to the victim that was killed.

 

[Voidwalkin]

What gun did this Thomas Crooks use

 

[PPQ_Purple]

And what are the diagnostic criteria for extremism? How do you know?

There are many. And many people who defined it much better than I ever could as I am neither a sociologist nor subject matter expert. But a non exhaustive list of their features include one or more of the following:

• Holding their own beliefs as being axiomatic and thus not subject to discussion. They are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. End of story.
• Belief that the ends justify the means.
• This includes extreme measures including but not limited to direct violence.
• Belief that all who disagree are axiomatically stupid, evil, mentally deficient or disabled or a combination of the above.
• Belief that it is permissible and desirable to curtail the rights of individuals one disagrees with on the grounds of the above.

Etc. Bottom line is, these are all just people on a power trip looking for an excuse to maintain that power trip and finding it in either religion, ideology or what ever else they latch on to that sounds good enough.

 

[Senethro]

There are many. And many people who defined it much better than I ever could as I am neither a sociologist nor subject matter expert. But a non exhaustive list of their features include one or more of the following:

• Holding their own beliefs as being axiomatic and thus not subject to discussion. They are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. End of story.
• Belief that the ends justify the means.
• This includes extreme measures including but not limited to direct violence.
• Belief that all who disagree are axiomatically stupid, evil, mentally deficient or disabled or a combination of the above.
• Belief that it is permissible and desirable to curtail the rights of individuals one disagrees with on the grounds of the above.

Etc. Bottom line is, these are all just people on a power trip looking for an excuse to maintain that power trip and finding it in either religion, ideology or what ever else they latch on to that sounds good enough.

Sure, but just to throw the obvious example in to test this criteria, there have been times in history when people held other people as property, and other people engaged in violent action to curtail their right to own legitimate property. So what if extremists can be "right"? (at least temporarily)

You need to assess these things evaluating their goals, methods, outcomes (and whether the three are in alignment). If you're too quick to just label people as extremists then you yourself may be at risk of labelling those who disagree with you as axiomatically stupid, evil, mentally deficient or disabled or a combination of the above.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not really right vs left in the US, it's right vs more right.

 

[Samson]

There are many. And many people who defined it much better than I ever could as I am neither a sociologist nor subject matter expert. But a non exhaustive list of their features include one or more of the following:

• Holding their own beliefs as being axiomatic and thus not subject to discussion. They are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. End of story.
• Belief that the ends justify the means.
• This includes extreme measures including but not limited to direct violence.
• Belief that all who disagree are axiomatically stupid, evil, mentally deficient or disabled or a combination of the above.
• Belief that it is permissible and desirable to curtail the rights of individuals one disagrees with on the grounds of the above.

Etc. Bottom line is, these are all just people on a power trip looking for an excuse to maintain that power trip and finding it in either religion, ideology or what ever else they latch on to that sounds good enough.

That is an odd set of "hardly anyone does that" and "everyone does that". Is there one country in the state that never "curtails the rights of individuals [it] disagrees with", or doe not use ends to justify means?

 

[Lexicus]

Once again, it's both.

The Democrats are passing state laws to prevent the banning of books from libraries, Republicans are banning books from libraries

 

[PPQ_Purple]

That is an odd set of "hardly anyone does that" and "everyone does that". Is there one country in the state that never "curtails the rights of individuals [it] disagrees with", or doe not use ends to justify means?

The general rule is that we are talking about a double standard. Extremists believe rights and freedoms are sacred when they are in favor of their opinions but vile if they apply to the opposite. So for example free speech means I get to make my case but and thus it is sacred right up until you disagree at which point you should be canceled and your free speech forbidden because you are using it to spread "lies and hatred". That sort of thing.

Sure, but just to throw the obvious example in to test this criteria, there have been times in history when people held other people as property, and other people engaged in violent action to curtail their right to own legitimate property. So what if extremists can be "right"? (at least temporarily)

You need to assess these things evaluating their goals, methods, outcomes (and whether the three are in alignment). If you're too quick to just label people as extremists then you yourself may be at risk of labelling those who disagree with you as axiomatically stupid, evil, mentally deficient or disabled or a combination of the above.

Which is why I in general draw the line at watching how people act as opposed to what they think or feel. Because actions are the only test of what someone really is.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe he could name his daughter as vp in the ticket, so that murdering him wouldn't produce any gain - and marvel at how low the US has fallen that candidates fear for their life.

 

[Samson]

The general rule is that we are talking about a double standard

If double standards make people extreme then there is a lot of it about.

 

[Verbose]

These are two different things. The Anglo commercialization of tertiary education is not linked to supposed left wing ideological push via social media.

Well, they're both things going on in the anglosphere and brought over from there. So they might not be linked there, but they are linked as to their place of origin, as received ideas.

Different sides of the same coin, leading to the same conclusion – maybe not use as a model?

Edit: Commercialization and social media ARE linked btw. In other news Elon musk is suing the EU now... The responsible commissioner seems rather amused.

 

[Gorbles]

The general rule is that we are talking about a double standard. Extremists believe rights and freedoms are sacred when they are in favor of their opinions but vile if they apply to the opposite. So for example free speech means I get to make my case but and thus it is sacred right up until you disagree at which point you should be canceled and your free speech forbidden because you are using it to spread "lies and hatred". That sort of thing.

By spreading false, unevidenced and honestly off-topic claims about the "far left" you're attempting to "cancel" said political demographic. This is an action, that you made, that others can observe. It's not just thinking or feeling - it's you doing something.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It's a rot spreading from the US in particular. The rest of us get it as an import.

And we do get it, since the US is important and looms large, and every US idea gets at lest tried, even the bad ones. Even the UK squirms at the weird US identity politics it gets as a hand-me-down.

It's part of why Europe should at least listen quite a lot less to the anglosphere.

I've always thought Brazil's Bolsonaro copied Trump at least a little bit.

The dizzying array of legal threats to Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro

Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro has been a target for investigations since his early days in office, and the swarm of cases have multiplied since his failed reelection campaign in 2022.

apnews.com

Sorry about exporting craziness.

 

[sophie]

This comparison is absurd.

One side of this putative divide is using political power to:
Ban queer people from public life
Spy on and punish women for decisions they make about their own bodies
Argue for the revocation women’s political rights and their sequestration to a man’s home
Round up foreigners to put in camps
Ban books from libraries
Campaign for the arrest of political enemies
Call for the murder or detention of perceived undesirables
Prohibit the use of public health measures

On the other side we have…what exactly?
A disparate band of children getting mad in public at celebrities?

 

[Senethro]

Sophie has the right of it.

Twitter spats and ratio'd posts are not equivalent to use of the state to harm specific groups.